You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

I'm not going to say very much about this except its unfair and unwise to form opinion based on statements from one individual. Every situation has a minimum of two viewpoints and listening to 1/2 of a story can yield nothing but a biased viewpoint.

One line answers on twitter can do nothing but stir controversy. They are simple statements that provide no depth.

As an example he says he has nothing to be bitter about because he chose to leave. People are assuming he left because of his previous statements which might very well not be the case.

He comments about Schwartz lying to him without and detail or context. It's his perception but it may well be a false perception.

I'm not going to say very much about this except its unfair and unwise to form opinion based on statements from one individual. Every situation has a minimum of two viewpoints and listening to 1/2 of a story can yield nothing but a biased viewpoint.

One line answers on twitter can do nothing but stir controversy. They are simple statements that provide no depth.

As an example he says he has nothing to be bitter about because he chose to leave. People are assuming he left because of his previous statements which might very well not be the case.

He comments about Schwartz lying to him without and detail or context. It's his perception but it may well be a false perception.

I never put much stock in comments like this.

Very true. We don't really know what happens. I just don't like controversy. _________________Future of our economy

"I love the organization," Jackson said. "I think anytime you have an opportunity to play with two young studs in Nick Fairley and Ndamukong Suh that's a huge plus.

Quote:

Jackson said the Lions and his agent (Michael Sullivan) haven't had a whole lot of dialogue leading up to free agency, but is hopeful that ratchets up over the next few days.

It's funny, the only sources saying the Lions made an offer to LoJack, are using LoJacks suggestion that they offered him a deal and he chose to leave. I can't find anything from any other source (within the Lions org) to back this up.

LoJack LOVES the organization and wants to re-sign. They sign Jason Jones. He goes to Minny and the Lions are evil.

"I love the organization," Jackson said. "I think anytime you have an opportunity to play with two young studs in Nick Fairley and Ndamukong Suh that's a huge plus.

Quote:

Jackson said the Lions and his agent (Michael Sullivan) haven't had a whole lot of dialogue leading up to free agency, but is hopeful that ratchets up over the next few days.

It's funny, the only sources saying the Lions made an offer to LoJack, are using LoJacks suggestion that they offered him a deal and he chose to leave. I can't find anything from any other source (within the Lions org) to back this up.

LoJack LOVES the organization and wants to re-sign. They sign Jason Jones. He goes to Minny and the Lions are evil.

Just because he said it's not "sour grapes" doesn't mean that isn't the case. I'm sure he realized that could be the perception, and nobody wants that perception.

From a sociological perspective, one is more likely to have negative opinions about a job they are fired from then if they quit. You can have a negative or a positive viewpoint about just about anything.

Here is an interesting article talking about it:

Quote:

Jackson felt he was poorly utilized in Detroit. Even though he's had more success rushing from the left side, he was put behind Vanden Bosch to provide a reliable option that would allow the team to lighten the aging veteran's workload. Jackson admits he struggled to play to his ability on the right side in both Detroit and Seattle.

Jackson also suggests that the Lions didn't utilized other defensive lineman correctly, including Cliff Avril, who Jackson believes should have been a blindside pass-rusher because of his speed off the ball.

From the looks of it, it seems like he didn't agree with the way he was utilized here. Considering he's still a free agent, I think it's safe to assume he wasn't welcomed back. If that is the case, I wouldn't expect anything other than negativity coming from the former Lion.

Gotta consider the source, and look at the context (like many other posters alluded to)_________________

detfan782004 wrote:

diehardlionfan wrote:

When I die I want the Lions to be pallbearers so they can let me down one more time.

"I love the organization," Jackson said. "I think anytime you have an opportunity to play with two young studs in Nick Fairley and Ndamukong Suh that's a huge plus.

Quote:

Jackson said the Lions and his agent (Michael Sullivan) haven't had a whole lot of dialogue leading up to free agency, but is hopeful that ratchets up over the next few days.

It's funny, the only sources saying the Lions made an offer to LoJack, are using LoJacks suggestion that they offered him a deal and he chose to leave. I can't find anything from any other source (within the Lions org) to back this up.

LoJack LOVES the organization and wants to re-sign. They sign Jason Jones. He goes to Minny and the Lions are evil.

Just because he said it's not "sour grapes" doesn't mean that isn't the case. I'm sure he realized that could be the perception, and nobody wants that perception.

From a sociological perspective, one is more likely to have negative opinions about a job they are fired from then if they quit. You can have a negative or a positive viewpoint about just about anything.

Here is an interesting article talking about it:

Quote:

Jackson felt he was poorly utilized in Detroit. Even though he's had more success rushing from the left side, he was put behind Vanden Bosch to provide a reliable option that would allow the team to lighten the aging veteran's workload. Jackson admits he struggled to play to his ability on the right side in both Detroit and Seattle.

Jackson also suggests that the Lions didn't utilized other defensive lineman correctly, including Cliff Avril, who Jackson believes should have been a blindside pass-rusher because of his speed off the ball.

From the looks of it, it seems like he didn't agree with the way he was utilized here. Considering he's still a free agent, I think it's safe to assume he wasn't welcomed back. If that is the case, I wouldn't expect anything other than negativity coming from the former Lion.

Gotta consider the source, and look at the context (like many other posters alluded to)

Also, his bit about Schwartz lying to his face, supposedly is about some unnamed assistant coaches claiming Schwartz called him soft behind his back because he works out?

And if Schwartz does think LoJack is soft.... why would they offer him a contract like he's trying to claim? If that bothered him so much, why did he "love the oragnization" just prior to free agency?

Also, his bit about Schwartz lying to his face, supposedly is about some unnamed assistant coaches claiming Schwartz called him soft behind his back because he works out?

And if Schwartz does think LoJack is soft.... why would they offer him a contract like he's trying to claim? If that bothered him so much, why did he "love the oragnization" just prior to free agency?

That "soft" part really sounds like a misunderstanding. Schwartz probably called him "soft" because of his play on the field, and that words were crossed. I don't think Schwartz would call a player "soft" because they work out too much. (Unless their workout is pathetic.)_________________Team Stylish

Players not being held to the same standard? If that is referring to how hard he is or isnt on certain players, I dont have a problem with that.

Some guys are hard on themselves, and know right away when they made a mistake and need to fix it. Other guys get better by you constantly riding them. These things a common among any workplace you go._________________Team Stylish

If the article is correct in what Jackson said, then he has maturity issues as well as problems with inter personal skills.

From LoJack (stylish313's link):

Quote:

•Jackson talked about getting the reputation of being a soft player because of how much time he spent in the training room taking care of his body. He was told by assistant coaches that he was called soft by Schwartz behind closed doors, but the coach would praise the defensive end's proactive approach to his face.

So suposedly, Schwartz called him soft for "taking care of his body". How does that make any sense whatsoever?

Justin Rogers did add the tidbit that Schwartz has used the same "proactive approach" with other players. So it seems strange that Schwartz would utilize an approach and then belittle a player for using that approach.